When I first registered for this class I thought it would only be about how to use technology (mostly computers)  in my classroom mainly to present information. For example, I would learn how to make PowerPoints, Podcasts and iMovies. Although I did learn some of this, the class has been about so much more. I not only learned about new ways to incorporate technology that will help engage students in school but also about how we as teachers need to do this whether or not we use technology. I have learned a lot about how I can use technology in my classroom, which is something I plan to do but I am still not sure how some of the things we learned about can be successfully used in a special education classroom.

My favorite readings were not the ones about technology or presentations (although those were helpful) but the ones that dealt strictly with teaching and making sure our students learn information not just memorize. For example we learned that we need to make sure that we plan our lessons while consciously thinking of how we can incorporate behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism . If we can do we are helping our student by giving them all the tools to succeed and to actually learn the material. This also goes along with the Taxonomy of Instructional Design. I really learned a lot through this reading and also reading other students posts. At first I was not sure how I would be able to utilize ALL the levels in a Special Education classroom especially Level 5 (Challenge). However, after reading other blogs about this I realized that I can get to this level, it just might take a little creativity and maybe a little more work. This is only my first semester actually in my major (Special Education) so I have not had classes yet on instructional design so I really appreciated that this class gave me a little taste of what I am going to keep in mind once I do start designing my own lessons. Not only was I able to learn about the Taxonomy of Instructional Design and scaffolding but I was able to read about my classmates opinions on it and see how they would implement it in their own classroom.

Obviously a big part of this class focused on how we can use technology in our classrooms. I think that there are so much that we can do as teachers that if we did not have computers and the internet we would not be able to do. For example I can create a webpage for myself, students and their parents. That will not just things that I post about homework but I can post pictures and videos. I can also have a blog on this webpage where I can communicate with parents, and parents can communicate with each other. Students can also post blogs and read each others blogs like we had to for this class. I learned how to do this by creating my mock teacher webpage. However I am still skeptical about how technology can benefit all students. There is no way to deny that technology will benefit education, it already has. As teachers we can save our lesson plans, upload them to the internet for our students and our students can even upload their own projects to the web. The internet is no longer a one way street. I learned this in Edtec, I had never thought about how students could use the internet for anything other than research. I think this is great for general education students and I think it will benefit them immensely. I'm still not convinced that this will have the same impact for special education students. I plan to work with a population of students who have severe disabilities, I feel that they have different educational and life goals than other students and I feel like sometimes technology will be ineffective in helping them achieve these goals. This does not mean that I will not try to incorporate technology into my lessons, this class has taught me that you can be very creative with technology. However, I will not bring technology into my class just for the sake of using technology if there is no educational advantage.
 

The author starts his article by telling the reader that he predicts that Web 2.0 will be big part of the future of education. I agree with him. Web 2.0 can be a very useful tool for educators. I think that one of biggest attribute of Web 2.0 is that it allows students and teachers to use the internet to converse with each other and build on each others ideas. One of the ways the article highlights the usefulness of Web 2.0 is point out that it engages students. Instead of students using the internet to look up information they use the internet to create their own content. This can be in the form of a blog, which can start a conversation, other students and even teachers can comment on. Everyone has the chance to hear or read different points of view. The article also says how Web 2.0 allows a student to have an authentic audience. I really like how the author highlighted this point. By posting your work on the internet you are putting out there for a potentially unlimited audience. Sometimes students are not motivated to do their best work just for a grade. Grades are not strong reinforcements for all students. By posting their work online it may reinforce students to do better than they would normally because they are essentially publishing their work for the public. By publishing their work online students can also get many more ideas on how they can improve it. One other point the author discussed was Web 2.0 helps students develop and practice their critical thinking skills. This is something that I think is very important for students to prepare them for college but also for life after school. There is so much information on the internet that students need to learn how to find information that they can trust. This is not just about finding good sources but also reading through the bias and view of a particular author which is not just helpful when using the internet but also when watching the news or reading a paper. It is obvious that there are many ways that Web 2.0 can be helpful in the classroom. How will you use it in your classroom? Do you think there is a downside to using Web 2.0? Do you think all students can benefit from it or only students who are performing at or above grade level? Will it widen or close the achievement gap between students of all socioeconomic backgrounds and special education students?

In the article the author talks about how we need to look beyond the traditional uses of computers. Computers were originally made to be used in work environments. But to use them in schools we need to use them in new ways. But how? All over the world there are computer labs where kids learn how to use technology at the next level. They learn how to create videos, not watch them, they learn how to make their own web pages not browse through them. They learn throughout this process. At one point in the article the author talks about how we need to throw out the traditional school model. Instead of separating the day into subject matters, it should be made into different projects or themes. Grades should not be determined by age but all student should work together on projects. Although I agree that we need to look beyond the traditional use of computers I do not think this is the way to do it. I think by completely throwing out the traditional school model we are taking a gamble with student's education. Would this type of model work? Would it be effective in teaching students skills they will need not only in college but in the real world and in the workplace. Maybe students can have a period a day where they can work on projects that they choose, that explore the different uses of computers but I don't think it should be an all day thing. Although this may be more fun than traditional subjects students still need to learn the "boring" subjects. Maybe these new views of computers can be brought in to spice up these subjects but only if they prove effective. Also I am very wary about this type of educational model could help special education students where structure is very important. If they were thrown into an unstructured environment like this would they just be lost and unproductive? But if they were separated into a different classroom this would just stigmatize them even more. I think it is a good idea to re think how computers are used but I don't think that it should completely change our educational system especially before there is sound data that this works for all types of students. 

   Not only did I think that Professor Lessig's lecture was an excellent example of a 'good' presentation but I also thought his view on technology was very interesting. I thought his actual presentation was good because he only had a few words on the screen at a time. I thought this worked because it stressed the importance of what he was saying. The videos and pictures he used where relevant to what he was saying. It was obvious he added them not just for the sake of adding more media to the presentation but because they stressed and illustrated his point for the audience.
     Aside from the actual presentation I thought his message was also very interesting. He started off the presentation with the story about the man who went to Congress and spoke about how the "talking machine" was going to ruin creativity. How it will be the end of people hanging outside their homes and singing together. He then spoke about how in the Middle Ages Latin and the "common language" separated the elite from the masses. Neither groups had access to the culture of the other. Technology is a way to bridge the gap between the masses and elite creatively. With the emergence of the internet we now have access to not only information but also media and art from all over the world. If its on the internet chances are we have access to it. Today everyone has the chance to experience and even express their own creativity. With sites like YouTube people have the tools to take music, videos and art and "quote" them to express their own creativity. Lessig compared this to people hanging outside their homes and singing together. This is just the modern way of pooling together resources. It is not killing creativity it is just part of the evolution of creativity. But it gets more complicated because of copy right laws. Do you think that technology kills creativity like the "talking machines"? Or do you think it is just the natural evolution of creativity and that copyright laws are hindering creativity? The author brought up a valid point that getting rid of copyright laws is not option. So i think the real question is how do we find a balance between expressing creativity and plagiarism? 

In Chapter 9, the author talks about how, as a presenter you need to connect to your audience. This seems like a simple idea, but how do you do it? The author first speaks about the length of your presentation. We all have sat through long lectures and if we were lucky maybe remembered one thing from the presentation. Before reading this chapter I never though about how the length of you presentation can either connect you or distance you from your audience. But now it seems kind of obvious, if you drag out a lecture and no one is paying attention how can you possible connect with them? As an example he used the presenters at TED, they were limited to only 18 minutes. Because of the time limitations they were able to give focused presentations and it also forces the presenters to be more creative. I thought about how much more effective shorter lectures would be in the classroom. If as teachers we only gave ourselves a limited amount of time to lecture to our students not only would our presentations be more concise but think of all the extra time we would have for activities that would allow the students to be engaged and maybe even enjoy learning. Of course this does put some responsibility on students. If we as teachers are going to give shorter lectures students would have to keep their end of the bargain by doing homework, readings and participating during the lecture and also during the activities. These are all things we would want our students to do regardless but maybe if we shorten our lectures and come up with more creative activities they would be more inclined to participate?   

We have all sat through lectures and presentations where the presenter has stuffed their slides with words and bullet points and just read off the slides. During presentations like this I know I usually just zone out or go on my computer. Presentation Zen says that to avoid situations like this there are a few things you can do. The textbook says that when you sit down to put together your presentation there are a few questions you should ask yourself. Some of the questions the text wants you to ask is how much time do I have? What is the venue? Who is my audience? What is the purpose of my talk? One of the most important questions you need to ask yourself is what is the central point? Pick out the most important point that you want your audience to pull away from your speech. Asking yourself these questions will help you trim away all unnecessary and boring information that will just make your audience zone out. Once you decide the central message of your speech you need to answer why does it matter? Something that could interest you, and seem important to you can bore someone else. You need to relate the information to them and tell them why they should be interested. How does it affect them? Asking these questions will tailor your presentation to your audience and hopefully make them more interested, but it also may force you to cut out other information that may be boring but still important. The text has a solution for this. Instead of stuffing the information into your presentation, you can make handouts to leave behind. If the audience wants to know more information after you have left they can refer to your notes. The text does stress though that you should only leave the notes after your presentation, otherwise the audience won't pay attention to you. This is something that we as college students know, if a teacher gives us slides before class there is a slim chance that we will pay attentions let alone attend.

When I read the RAT Framework, specifically the section on Replication, I immediately thought of SmartBoards. A SmartBoard is a replication of a projector used to show PowerPoint presentations. This type of projector was a replication of an overhead projector, which in turn was a replication of the chalkboard. The SmartBoard is replication of the chalkboard and projectors because it serves the same purpose as these other types of technology. They are all ways for teachers to convey notes to their students. On a chalkboard a teacher would have to write the notes on the board. For a overhead projector a teacher would have to type the notes and then print them on transparency sheets. This is more convenient than a chalkboard, because with chalkboards you don't have unlimited space to write all your notes. With a projector that connects to a computer you eliminate the step of printing anything, everything you need is on the computer. The downside to this is if a teacher wants to make additional notes they have to move over to the chalkboard. SmartBoards combine the positives of all these, everything is on the computer and the teacher could make additional notes and marks whenever they need to. 

I thought that "Using Technology to Advance Educational Goals" presented a very interesting relationship between technology and school reform. Technology can be a part of school reform, but adding technology to a school curriculum does not produce change on its own.  I also agree with the text that working in groups to explore and create solutions to problems promotes learning.


My senior year of high school, I took a Public Affairs class. This wasn't a typical high school class. Instead of reading about government and how it works, and then taking a test, we actually experienced it. At the start of the quarter we had to research and pick a problem in our community, each group picked a different problem. We did most of this research using the Internet, using online databases and newspaper websites (to read past articles).  After we picked our problem we had to find facts and statistics to prove that this was an urgent issue. Once again the Internet was very helpful in finding updated information, but we also had to use other resources, we had to call experts and local government officials. After we had all our information we had to develop a practical solution. Our plan couldn't be far fetched or expensive because in the real world in order to get people to agree to an idea or solution you have it has to feasible and a reasonable cost. We couldn't just have a plan; we actually had to implement at least part of our plan somehow. My partner and I tackled the high rate of incidence of breast cancer in our county. Part of our plan called for women to be better educated about breast cancer, to implement this we made brochures and distributed them to local doctors offices.  Once again we used computers and technology to create professional brochures to distribute. At the end of the semester we had to present all the work we did through a Power Point presentation (once again we had to use technology). The purpose of the presentation was to convince our classmates and teacher that we found a real problem and we developed a solution that we believe will help. We had to sell our solution much like government officials lobby for legislation to be passed.


I learned more about how legislation is passed in this one class than I did in all my history classes combined. I had to work in a group to create my own solutions to real problems. Technology was not forced into the curriculum, but it was used as a tool that helped develop plans and solutions. To me this class was the perfect example of the blending of technology and educational reform discussed in the text.

Level 1 of the taxonomy of instructional design is simply relaying of information from the teacher to the student. I think that far too often this is the only way information is taught in a classroom. In a special education classroom this is usually not the best way for a student to actually learn. For example if you were to stand up in front of the class and say a quarter is worth 25 cents, a dime is 10 cents and so on the students won't know what the coin values are. I would be willing to bet that if you waited ten minutes and then asked what the value of a quarter was the majority of the class if any would not be able to answer the question. However in some situations this would be an adequate way to relay information.  For example if you were doing an arts and crafts project simply giving instructions step by step would fulfill the purpose of completing the project.




Level 2 is applying knowledge; level two requires more learner involvement. An example of a level two activity would be some sort of question answer session. In a special education classroom this could be done while reading a story. We did this a lot at the camp I worked at this summer. After every page or every chapter depending the cognitive level of the students we would first ask the students concrete, WHAT questions. What kind of animal was it? WHAT did the bully say to the main character? What was your favorite part? Then we would follow with some more complex questions. HOW would you feel if? WHY was that your favorite part? Then we would have the students ask each other questions about the story. For many of the students socializing like this was a huge step. They were not only applying knowledge from the story but also using social kids needed in life.

 


I plan on working with students with severe disabilities. Utilizing the last three levels of taxonomy are a little harder, but they can be done especially when teaching life skills. Level 3, Extension involves the concept of generalization. If yelling in one classroom is inappropriate then yelling in someone else's classroom is too. If yelling in the school is not accepted, yelling in the mall or library is equally inappropriate. Getting students to this level where they can generalize behaviors will be one of the goals in my classroom.  For the population I plan to work with Level 4, generation of solutions or complex ideas will be very difficult. I can use Level 4 lesson plans when I need to 'teach' or promote socialization. Autistic students have a notoriously hard time connecting to other people. My goal will be lesson plans that prompt the students to talk and play or work with each other without explicitly telling them to do so. Level 5 lesson plans would be the hardest to incorporate into my curriculum.

Every child is different and this is especially true in a special education classroom, where the students could have a wide range of disabilities. In order to make sure every student gets the help they deserve teachers need to take advantage of all the different educational theories. How People Learn, talks specifically about three major theories; behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, I believe that all three of these theories should be employed in the classroom.

According to behaviorism, learning takes place through behavior modification, this happens once stimuli are connected with desired responses. I plan to teach kids who are either autistic or have some degree of mental retardation, behavior modification is definitely a tool that I will have to employ. Some of the kids that I worked with over the summer were only motivated if we presented them a reward for working hard. One girl in particular, would throw tantrums whenever she had to do any writing work. She would start every tantrum by throwing her pen on the ground, crossing her arms and screaming that she can't do it, it's too hard. As soon as we saw these signs we would have to go over to her and present her with choices. She would cooperate and write for a half hour she would then be allowed to play with her sticker book for fifteen minutes. Without this she would of never worked on her writing, and she would disrupt the class.

The text also spoke about "learning with understanding" or cognitivism. It seems like common sense, but it's very important. Instead of just rote memory it is more beneficial for a student to actually understand the facts and concepts that they are learning. You cannot teach a student to read, if they first don't know the alphabet and letter sounds. This seems obvious but sometimes teachers overestimate the ability of their students. For example this summer I worked with a boy who was able to recognize most letters. One day I was assigned to work with him on three letter 'at' words, so I showed him a list of words like 'cat, mat, sat, hat...". First I had him just copy the words and read them aloud when he was done, after he seemed to master that I had him read the list to me. At first it was hard but he eventually was able to accomplish it. I then had him read the words out loud to me, after some practice he was able to do this as well. We hit a wall once I mixed the words up. He had memorized the list so once I mixed it up he couldn't read the words he just guessed which words they were. Although I thought he was making progress he was just memorizing the words not learning the 'at' sound.

"Pre-existing knowledge" or constructivism is also very important, especially in regard to teaching social and life skills. By the time life skills becomes the focus of curriculum students already have a repertoire of coping methods that may be inappropriate. The same boy who had trouble reading also had very inappropriate social skills. Unfortunately his family was not very supportive of his disability so they basically just pushed him to the side and basically ignored him. He would laugh during serious discussions and throw things to get attention. Before we could teach him how to behave at work sites and other social situations we had to try and control his laughter and tantrums. He couldn't learn how to how to behave at work sites until he understood why his behavior was not acceptable and until he could change his behavior.